Big payroll teams pay a luxury tax which helps small market teams. I don't think it is enough to compete with Steve Cohen or the LA Dodgers' deep pockets.
Smaller market teams dont need to try to compete with the larger market teams. They now can benefit from MLB's greatly expanded playoff levels. Over the past decade smaller to medium market teams such as CIN, STL, MIL, PIT, KC, TB, CLE, are now qualifying for the postseason and the real opportunity to play for a championship.
After a while, this constant complaining from the small market teams is akin to Lucy in Peanuts who complains after being struck out, that she should be given additional strikes for various excuses. She is then given a couple of additional opportunities, but she strikes out anyway after 5 or 6 strikes--the final frame has her returning to the dugout still complaining "What kind of league is this where you "only" get (5-6) strikes?" When everyone else is only afforded 3 strikes.
Thus, the smaller market teams in MLB have plenty of opportunities to make the postseason. It remains on them if they want to actually take their team to the next level. And being the fact that most, if not nearly every single owner in MLB is a billionaire, there's little reason than ever before for fans to complain about smaller markets perceived lack of opportunities to complete with their larger market counterparts.
There was a lot of fear recently that the L.A. Dodgers, who have been recently a rare combination of rich and smart, would come to utterly dominate baseball, but that seems implausible. The best young players are currently in small market Kansas City, Bobby Witt Jr., small market Pittsburgh, Paul Skenes, and mid-market Baltimore, Gunnar Henderson.
The Dodgers, in contrast, are getting old: Ohtani will be 30, Betts 32, and Freeman 35. Great players last longer, but it's likely their peak seasons are behind them.
The Orioles have done an excellent job drafting in the last four or five years. I worry that they may have a hard time paying everyone when they are due for free agency. The Orioles are resigned to losing Anthony Santander- a butcher in the outfield who rarely walks-to free agency. Cedric Mullins will probably follow when he's eligible. In comparison, the Nats have drafted woefully in the 2010s and had an empty cupboard when the World Series team was broken up.
A bit surprised that LA didn't attempt to sign Soto.
Yes, that's true, but, the fact remains that these best young players won't be with their small market teams for very long. Once they hit free agency, the larger market teams will gobble them up.
Ohtani is old? Seriously?
in 2024's MLB, 30 is the new 26, especially with improved training methods and...perhaps other things to help players maintain their competitive edge. After all, Bonds had his best seasons after 35.
What do you think about the new HOF inductees, Dick Allen and Dave Parker?
I don't think Allen should be in Cooperstown, to be honest. They've been talking about him for decades, so perhaps with players known to have abused PEDS (or at least the idea that some of them may have, the PED era is coming up for induction), they went with a safer choice.
The Veterans Committee should be 99% removed from voting--maybe allow them to bring a nominee for possible induction once every 12-15 yrs or so.
By this point in MLB history, it is ridiculous to suggest that "Oh no! We forgot to induct--so and so, and it's been over 20 yrs since he called it quits!"
Parker is an interesting choice. In some ways his stats were on par to be with Dave Winfield, but then his career petered out after the drug scandal and he was never quite the same.
But then again, this is only making a point from a while back that IF one can induct Parker and Allen, then Cooperstown can certainly induct...Dave Kingman. And perhaps seeing how the Veterans Committee is voting these days, perhaps one day Kingman's time will come.
Parker's WAR was 40 and Allen's 59. Although WAR shouldn't be the only criteria for Hall of Fame, it does mean something. Parker's 40 is not much above Harold Baines' 38. Few baseball fans think Baines belongs.
Veterans Committees have their own flaws. In the long past, Frankie Fritsch was known to lobby his baseball pals into the Hall and he got several inferior candidates through.
Got a TL for you--pretty much all the old time HOFers lobbied to get their pals in to Cooperstown (E.g. Yogi lobbied to get Rizzuto in). Famous story about Ted Williams refusing to vote in Mazeroski until his teammate buddy Bobby Doerr was inducted. Once Doerr was inducted ,Williams promptly voted for Maz--and Mazeroski was finally inducted in 2001.
Yes, WAR can tell you some thing...but OTHER things are still important as well. For instance: since HOF measures a player's entire career, it should also include such things as H's, RBI's, HR's etc.
Dave Kingman has more career HR's than either Parker or Rice, and about the same career total as HOFer Andre Dawson.
I'm fairly certain that as the HOF's criterion is still far from perfect (they inducted Gil Hodges a few yr back) and some lightweights still get in, then that should only help Dave Kingman's chances over the long haul. Also a shout out to Rusty Staub, he should probably get in one day. And also Al Oliver.
I mean after all, we can't really argue vs certain players not getting inducted when several creampuffs are getting inducted and STILL getting inducted. So one can't in good faith argue "Nah, Kingman doesn't belong in, but Gil Hodges? Now THERE was a HOFer if ever there was one!"
Yeah right. Believe that and we'll tell ya another one.
Staub and Oliver were hitting machines but Staub was always poor in the field. Gil Hodges, Dusty Baker and Davey Johnson are three men who don't belong in the Hall for their on-field ability but each were very good players. I think they belong because a combination of managing and playing ability.
As a Braves fan, I start worrying around this time of year that the Mets will finally get it alright and dominate like we've done for the past 20 odd years...but it never happens.
Don't worry. The Mets will be marginally better but the Braves are a better run franchise. I don't believe the Mets will win a World Series during Soto's stay.
I grew up a Redskins fan. The Dan Snyder Redskins were the worst run franchise for two decades. On the other hand, the Steelers have been a well-run franchise for almost 55 years.
The Braves quite wisely signed some of their bigger stars to long contracts before they came near to free agency. The Braves seem to form better young pitchers than most other teams. In contrast, the Nats didn't form a single adequate starter after Strasburg until very recently.
People forget that while Steinbrenner capitalized on Free Agency in the 1970s to sign Reggie Jackson, Goose Gossage and Catfish Hunter and win two World Championships, subsequent big signings like Dave Winfield did not produce trophies. And while Winfield played like a star, other players signed in the 1980s by Steinbrenner did not produce. This includes Ed Whitson, Dave Collins and Andy Hawkins. By the end of the 1980s the Yankees were one of the weakest teams in the American League!
"Dumb" money can make one look smart. It also can lead one to make dumb decisions.
By the end of the 70's the New York Giants were so bad that NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle had to hold an intervention with Giants owner Wellington Mara. The Giants being a laughingstock was bad for football, Rozelle told him. Mara hired George Young as GM, who drafted Phill Simms and Lawrence Taylor and the Giants went on to be one of the dominant teams of the 80s.
For those who aren't from the area, at the time Wellington coöwned the Giants with his nephew Tim, with the issue being they weren't on speaking terms. They were being run as a mom-and-pop shop but the uncle-and-nephew couldn't get along! Tim finally sold out to Bob Tisch in 1991, with Wellington's oldest son and Bob's oldest son still controlling the Giants 50/50 to this day. As an aside this ownership arrangement is now illegal in the NFL; they like having one person in charge. The Giants and the Packers have been grandfathered in.
The NFL is quite a racket. For instance, Dan Snyder was part of a group that bought the Redskins from the Cooke family for something like $800 million. Snyder incompetently ran the franchise so badly that he drove away the fan base. Home games are like away games, especially when teams like the Steelers and the Cowboys come to lovely Landover, MD. But Snyder failed upwards. He sold the ex-Skins for $6 billion and is laughing all the way to the bank.
The average fan doesn’t seem to mind that the Goliaths of their league dominate most years. This especially true in European soccer where mid-level teams sell their stars to top teams to pay down debt. But look at the number of Lakers or Yankees jerseys in middle America and I guess Joe Blow is fine with it. Being a contrarian I feel like I’m always rooting for the teams that don’t have a chance in hell.
There are two major differences between MLB and the NFL. The first is TV income. NFL teams share equally income from TV contracts, while MLB teams generate most of their TV revenue from local contracts. This creates huge discrepancies in team income.
The second major difference is salary caps. MLB has a salary cap but allows teams to exceed the cap by paying a luxury tax to the league. The NFL salary cap is a “hard” cap with no exceptions. Teams can play around with signing bonuses, renegotiating contracts, etc. but most such strategies only delay the day of reckoning.
One key strategy in the NFL is to sign a QB who values winning over maximizing income. Brady and Mahomes both fit into this category. Both were willing to ink contracts at less than the going rate for top performers, allowing teams to sign better supporting casts, although it seems that the Chiefs should have spent more on their left tackles this year. I’m not aware of any baseball players willing to take less than market value to benefit the team.
Mahomes even pulls a teammate (Kelsey) and his head coach into his endorsement deals with State Farm and Subway.
Fine analysis. The NFL comes close to socialism. Little Green Bay makes as much money as the New York Jets. Local cable deals are the big moneymakers in baseball. The Yankees make way more the Royals, Pirates or Rays.
Back when the Atlanta Braves were hot, I heard that Chipper Jones was offered large money on several occasions but opted to spend his career with the franchise that brought him up. Is that what they call a "franchise player?" I dunno. But I do know MLB would be better all around if the players stuck with the partners who brung'em to the dance.
Could free agency have happened without collective bargaining? I wasn't following baseball at all when those negotiations took place. Unionization is what threw U.S. government bureaucracy into tailspin of corruption. Free agency sounds like bait slick lawyers used to gull the young players into joining a union.
Ohtani gave the Dodgers a big discount in Net Present Value terms so they could give him a World Series winning supporting cast, judging by how much Soto went for in NPV. Presumably, Ohtani makes such an incredible amount of money from endorsements in Japan that his team figured he'd do better being the best player on the best team in America than being the highest paid player.
It is funny about quarterbacks. Dominant quarterbacks create winners. And think about the Chicago Bears. Their best all-time quarterback is Sid Luckman who played mostly in the 40s. That's over eighty years ago. The best Bears quarterback since has probably been Jim McMahon, quarterback of that dominant team in the mid-80s.
"On the other hand, should small city teams be as successful as big city teams?"
Well, in the US, do more people live in small markets or large markets? Would tend to think its the small(er) markets/counties that contain the most people (if also one counts suburbs, exhurbs, rural areas)--think the electoral US map that's often shown on election night and beyond--the red state/blue state divide, with the red areas pretty much containing most of the US counties, with the blue areas being the largest metro areas.
Burt according to the Electoral College, it would seem that the most people reside in the red areas, not the blue ones.
As been pointed out numerous times over the decades, baseball in particular got it start in small towns, not in the big cities.
But then one could also make the case that small market teams in MLB have about near equal parity as is possible, with the expanded playoff system, which means that over the last decades teams small markets like Tampa Bay, PIT, STL, KC, have the opportunity to qualify for the postseason, if not actually progress to the WS and play for a championship, which is the same thing for the NFL.
World Soccer it seems would also benefit from expanded levels of playoffs (if they do have such a system intact in their postseason), however, as Steve as stated, the smaller market and thus inferior teams are automatically contracted out of the league so as not to taint the overall quality of the league--this idea would actually be interesting to implement in MLB. Say, the bottom 5 teams in MLB were automatically contracted out for a period of 5 seasons, until they show the ability to improve their quality of play on the field.
But the expanded posteason in MLB has definitely given an opportunity to small market teams to have a chance to compete for a championship. Something that they didn't have in MLB during the 1901-68 era, where there were no multiple levels of the postseason. Then at that time, the teams that finished in first place at the end of the season immediately proceded to the WS, so in that sense, the small market teams have it far easier and directly benefit with the expanded playoff ievels.
I liked that system better. Baseball had real pennant races. But the current playoff system makes more money and baseball will never go back to the old way. Today, teams like the 2019 Nats can surge in the late Summer, get into the playoffs and stay hot, and win the World Series with a 92 win team. The Nats were not the best team in baseball in 2019 but they got hot at the right time.
These are good points, but to be fair, there are also examples of teams getting hot at just the right time during MLB's old system (1901-68)--some of which prompted one or best of three playoff series. For some reason, the 46, 51, 59, and 62 all had BRK/LA involved. The famous 51 NL race, where BRK was leading NYG by 13.5 games in mid. August and the Giants rallied from there on out to win the Pennant.
Also, for most of this Era, MLB had only 16 teams total in all of MLB, later expanded to 20 from 1961-68. I would prefer to see about 4-10 MLB teams contracted out, bringing the total number of MLB teams to more manageable number between 20-26. If there were say, six teams contracted out (akin to UK's Premier League, where the weakest teams are contracted out for a time period) and MLB had "only" 24 teams, with 12 in each league, one could make a case to return to a two division format of six teams, and then a single round of best of 5 games for the league Pennant. And...no Wild Card team, period. None.
Now THAT would go a long way in determining the best team in each league.
Perhaps the expanded playoff rounds are yet another sop thrown to the smaller market teams. After all, smaller markets have:
a. The Luxury Tax imposed on large market teams.
b. Revenue Sharing
c. Top draft picks each year awarded to the teams with the worst records in MLB 's previous season (which usually, but not always, falls on the small market teams).
So I'm not really seeing uh, WHY more and more concessions need to be given to the smaller market teams, especially when their owners are for the most part billionaires, just like the owners of the large market teams. IF with aforementioned sops, combined with the expanded postseason rounds and they still are unable to field competitive teams, then perhaps to even the scales out, MLB should adopt the Premier League's contraction of the weakest teams out of MLB for a specific period of time, and, say, contract the 4-6 weakest teams out, thus bringing back MLB's total number of teams to around 24 in any given season.
Well…historically in MLB, there are the Yankees,… and there are everyone else.
Rather than saying that fact, wanted to keep it civil, and respectful.
Yes, you get back by doing better in an inferior league, but…that’s assuming that a number of MLB sucky teams would be able to have a high finish in say, Triple A
Come on, folks, kidding not kidding. Just go with it.
But it would be good to contract the worst 4-6 teams out and remove the diluted quality. But then again, the HOF is getting diluted, so contraction of the worst teams probably won’t happen.
In Europe it’s quite common for people to support their local team, with the knowledge it can’t possibly win, and *also* to support one of the in-contention giants. And the local sides are often playing for minor prizes of their own: avoiding relegation, seeking promotion, etc.
That fan culture doesn’t really exist in the US because the major sports don’t have inferior divisions comprised of independent teams, but you can sorta see an analogue with a fan who supports both a college and a pro team in the same sport.
Europe also does not have the same level of public-private partnership on stadium deals. Such deals in the U.S. eliminate even discussing promotion and relegation.
In college sports, if the SEC and BIG Ten break away from the rest of college sports, some level of relegation and promotion could occur to keep the excludes conferences in the sphere of the SEC.
With Soto’s contract we are seeing multiple players approaching eye-watering billion dollar contract territory. They can obviously be paid that much by today’s deep-pocketed owners, but can they actually EARN a billion dollars over the life of their playing careers? (Truly earning it by increasing the value of the team through their play and drawing power by more than the cost of their contract)
Baseball has a limited global market when compared to soccer/football. Perhaps the zillionaire class simply doesn’t care…or they are counting on another zillionaire coming along who cares even less about making a profit?
I wonder how much in taxes Soto will pay in New York. If he really wanted every dollar, I suppose he could play for one of the Florida or Texas teams. No state income tax in either.
FWIW, I did notice during a visit to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, about a decade ago, that there are still several dozen Major League baseball teams that have never won the World Series.
"FWIW, I did notice during a visit to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, about a decade ago, that there are still several dozen Major League baseball teams that have never won the World Series."
Several dozen? There are a total of five teams that haven't won the WS: The Colorado Rockies, Milwaukee Brewers, San Diego Padres, Seattle Mariners and Tampa Rays.
Umm, there are barely several dozen MLB teams overall, never mind that many who have never won the World Series. As it stands 25 teams have won and 5 haven't. In addition, one doesn't need to go to Cooperstown to figure this out.
I wonder if there are studies that analyze whether paying big money for free agents work out in baseball. The Harper and Turner signings have propelled the Phillies into contenders. On the other hand, the Orioles had Corbin Burnes for one season and the Orioles declined by about ten wins this season. In the long past, George Foster signed with the Mets and the Mets remained a poor team although Foster hit fairly well but not up to his Reds standards. For every free agent signing that worked out, there's probably at least one that didn't work out.
Bill James pointed out around 1980 that baseball players tend to peak around age 27, so that the early free agent contracts rewarding famous 30-something stars were usually a bad idea.
I am old enough to remember when Joe Rudi of the Oakland A's was called the most underrated player in baseball. Once Charlie Finley decided not to pay his players, Rudi moved on to the Padres. He was a mediocrity for the rest of his career.
iSteve's favorite politician Steve Garvey has failed in his most recent attempt to gain entry into the baseball hall of fame. He received fewer than 5 votes from a committee of 16, with 12 needed for election. Lest anyone think the committee was unnecessarily gatekeeping, they did elect Dick Allen and Dave Parker.
Steve Garvey was a very good player but not Hall of Fame. He hit for medium power and didn't walk a whole lot. Allen and Parker are marginal Hall of Famers. Off the top of my head, players who deserve the Hall of Fame are Tommy John, Lou Whittaker, Dwight Evans, Jeff Kent and Jim Edmonds.
I can see the argument for Dick Allen, who was an incredible talent and an interesting personality, if a drunk, but Dave Parker seems like exactly who'd you want to leave out: a huge talent who didn't live up to his potential due to cocaine and getting fat.
Looking over Parker's stats for the first time in a long while, I tend to agree. Parker wasted much of his prime-years talent. Seasons 1981-1983 clearly mediocre. He put on weight and had to move to first base with the Reds and A's. WAR of 40, somewhat above Harold Baines but far behind Lou Whittaker, Jim Edmonds, Bobby Grich and even Toby Harrah. Nobody's in favor of Harrah in the Hall although he was a very consistent and productive player. Sort of like Howie Kendricks.
In ancient Rome, chariot racing was a huge draw. Before gladiators, chariot racing was the big Roman sporting event, and even after gladiators became big chariot racing retained that traditional Roman appeal, e.g. in the fictional Ben Hur the title character becomes a celebrity from being a great charioteer and not from being a general or being a gladiator. Chariot racing might be considered the MLB to gladiator contests being NFL: an older nostalgic draw for Romans that still retained fans even as the newer sport/league took over marketshare.
Anyway, Rome used to have 4 major chariot teams: the Blues, the Reds, the Whites, and the Greens. However, by late antiquity, only the Blues and Greens remained viable for championships, with the Reds and Whites either not competing most of the time or largely relegated to 3rd and 4th place.
Perhaps a precurser to the MLB's current big-market dominance?
Then again, as much as "big market" MLB teams win, usually every 3-5 years some small market team, through careful drafting and signing low-budget players, makes a run, e.g. Tampa Bay. So while big market teams will always be in the mix (especially with the playoff system), small market teams are not permanently relegated to never winning.
It's not such a bad system for MLB: they are assured that big market teams are always in it for the championship, and therefore the league will have the most eyeballs on the games, but the small-market underdogs can come in and play spoiler/pull and upset and make for a dramatic story every few years to make it exciting. Historically, baseball functions best when there is an overdog dominant "bad guy" team from a big market that smaller teams can snipe at and occasionally upset, e.g. Babe Ruth's 1920s Yankees, Joe Dimaggio/Mickey Mantle's Yankees, the late 70s/early 80s Dodgers, the Gashouse Gang St. Louis Cardinals of the 1930s, the Red Sox of the 2000s, etc.
In fact, this "bad guy" dominant team system is the same as it was for pro wrestling in the old territory days. A bad guy champion would come into town and challenge the local champ, and then walk away with the belt after the local good guy put on a good show. Ric Flair made huge money being the over-the-top dominant bad guy with the championship for the NWA, roaming from territory to territory across the U.S.
P.S. The two-team dominance in Rome eventually became a cause of the rebellion against the Eastern emperor called the Nika riots. The supporters of the two remaining big teams had devolved into football hooligan-esque factions, and often rioted. Enemies of the emperor united the two hooligan groups in a riot against the emperor during a chariot race, and 30,000 people were killed. The emperor survived, however.
"with the player having an option after 5 seasons to re-up and to guarantee him $805 million."
It is all but certain this option will be exercised as it is highly unlikely that Soto will get this kind of AAV for ages 32-41 seasons so it basically just serves as an escalator in the contract.
Aaron Judge had an all time great year at age 32, but he had to play centerfield because Soto had to play right because Stanton really had to be DH. So all winter everybody is going to be dumping on Judge for dropping a ball in the last game of the World Series.
You really want to give your 58 homer man an easy position to play so he doesn't get down about his defense.
The Yankees might want to trade for Jacob Young of the Nats. Young is a center-fielding wizard with little power and some speed, a perfect ninth batter.
With the caveat that Judge should have caught that ball, it is worth noting that very few of the greatest offensive players in MLB history have been centerfielders. I can think of Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Tris Speaker, and Mickey Mantle, but that's about it. Meanwhile corner outfielders abound on the list starting with Ruth, Bonds, and Williams.
The best five-tool player in MLB history might be Rickey Henderson. When he was first traded to the Yankees he was forced to play CF as Ken Griffey was entrenched in LF. They eventually figured out that Henderson was much more productive in LF so they traded Griffey for Claudell Washington and put him in CF.
As an aside, due to a lack of Wild Card teams those late-80s Yankees have been forgotten about, but those teams were stacked.
Big payroll teams pay a luxury tax which helps small market teams. I don't think it is enough to compete with Steve Cohen or the LA Dodgers' deep pockets.
Smaller market teams dont need to try to compete with the larger market teams. They now can benefit from MLB's greatly expanded playoff levels. Over the past decade smaller to medium market teams such as CIN, STL, MIL, PIT, KC, TB, CLE, are now qualifying for the postseason and the real opportunity to play for a championship.
After a while, this constant complaining from the small market teams is akin to Lucy in Peanuts who complains after being struck out, that she should be given additional strikes for various excuses. She is then given a couple of additional opportunities, but she strikes out anyway after 5 or 6 strikes--the final frame has her returning to the dugout still complaining "What kind of league is this where you "only" get (5-6) strikes?" When everyone else is only afforded 3 strikes.
Thus, the smaller market teams in MLB have plenty of opportunities to make the postseason. It remains on them if they want to actually take their team to the next level. And being the fact that most, if not nearly every single owner in MLB is a billionaire, there's little reason than ever before for fans to complain about smaller markets perceived lack of opportunities to complete with their larger market counterparts.
There was a lot of fear recently that the L.A. Dodgers, who have been recently a rare combination of rich and smart, would come to utterly dominate baseball, but that seems implausible. The best young players are currently in small market Kansas City, Bobby Witt Jr., small market Pittsburgh, Paul Skenes, and mid-market Baltimore, Gunnar Henderson.
The Dodgers, in contrast, are getting old: Ohtani will be 30, Betts 32, and Freeman 35. Great players last longer, but it's likely their peak seasons are behind them.
The Orioles have done an excellent job drafting in the last four or five years. I worry that they may have a hard time paying everyone when they are due for free agency. The Orioles are resigned to losing Anthony Santander- a butcher in the outfield who rarely walks-to free agency. Cedric Mullins will probably follow when he's eligible. In comparison, the Nats have drafted woefully in the 2010s and had an empty cupboard when the World Series team was broken up.
A bit surprised that LA didn't attempt to sign Soto.
Yes, that's true, but, the fact remains that these best young players won't be with their small market teams for very long. Once they hit free agency, the larger market teams will gobble them up.
Ohtani is old? Seriously?
in 2024's MLB, 30 is the new 26, especially with improved training methods and...perhaps other things to help players maintain their competitive edge. After all, Bonds had his best seasons after 35.
What do you think about the new HOF inductees, Dick Allen and Dave Parker?
I don't think Allen should be in Cooperstown, to be honest. They've been talking about him for decades, so perhaps with players known to have abused PEDS (or at least the idea that some of them may have, the PED era is coming up for induction), they went with a safer choice.
The Veterans Committee should be 99% removed from voting--maybe allow them to bring a nominee for possible induction once every 12-15 yrs or so.
By this point in MLB history, it is ridiculous to suggest that "Oh no! We forgot to induct--so and so, and it's been over 20 yrs since he called it quits!"
Parker is an interesting choice. In some ways his stats were on par to be with Dave Winfield, but then his career petered out after the drug scandal and he was never quite the same.
But then again, this is only making a point from a while back that IF one can induct Parker and Allen, then Cooperstown can certainly induct...Dave Kingman. And perhaps seeing how the Veterans Committee is voting these days, perhaps one day Kingman's time will come.
Parker's WAR was 40 and Allen's 59. Although WAR shouldn't be the only criteria for Hall of Fame, it does mean something. Parker's 40 is not much above Harold Baines' 38. Few baseball fans think Baines belongs.
Veterans Committees have their own flaws. In the long past, Frankie Fritsch was known to lobby his baseball pals into the Hall and he got several inferior candidates through.
Got a TL for you--pretty much all the old time HOFers lobbied to get their pals in to Cooperstown (E.g. Yogi lobbied to get Rizzuto in). Famous story about Ted Williams refusing to vote in Mazeroski until his teammate buddy Bobby Doerr was inducted. Once Doerr was inducted ,Williams promptly voted for Maz--and Mazeroski was finally inducted in 2001.
Yes, WAR can tell you some thing...but OTHER things are still important as well. For instance: since HOF measures a player's entire career, it should also include such things as H's, RBI's, HR's etc.
Dave Kingman has more career HR's than either Parker or Rice, and about the same career total as HOFer Andre Dawson.
I'm fairly certain that as the HOF's criterion is still far from perfect (they inducted Gil Hodges a few yr back) and some lightweights still get in, then that should only help Dave Kingman's chances over the long haul. Also a shout out to Rusty Staub, he should probably get in one day. And also Al Oliver.
I mean after all, we can't really argue vs certain players not getting inducted when several creampuffs are getting inducted and STILL getting inducted. So one can't in good faith argue "Nah, Kingman doesn't belong in, but Gil Hodges? Now THERE was a HOFer if ever there was one!"
Yeah right. Believe that and we'll tell ya another one.
Staub and Oliver were hitting machines but Staub was always poor in the field. Gil Hodges, Dusty Baker and Davey Johnson are three men who don't belong in the Hall for their on-field ability but each were very good players. I think they belong because a combination of managing and playing ability.
As a Braves fan, I start worrying around this time of year that the Mets will finally get it alright and dominate like we've done for the past 20 odd years...but it never happens.
Don't worry. The Mets will be marginally better but the Braves are a better run franchise. I don't believe the Mets will win a World Series during Soto's stay.
We've been very lucky with our General Managers and the appointments they've made.
As a long standing Washington Redskins fan, I can tell you the difference between a badly run club and a well run one.
I grew up a Redskins fan. The Dan Snyder Redskins were the worst run franchise for two decades. On the other hand, the Steelers have been a well-run franchise for almost 55 years.
Green Bay are the nearest to an NFC comparison...if you ignore 1969 to 1991
To be fair to the Cowgirls, the 'Girls have been pretty successful for nearly sixty years even if they are in a long Super Bowl drought.
The Braves quite wisely signed some of their bigger stars to long contracts before they came near to free agency. The Braves seem to form better young pitchers than most other teams. In contrast, the Nats didn't form a single adequate starter after Strasburg until very recently.
New York really is the hometown of baseball.
Just not very good baseball, by and large.
People forget that while Steinbrenner capitalized on Free Agency in the 1970s to sign Reggie Jackson, Goose Gossage and Catfish Hunter and win two World Championships, subsequent big signings like Dave Winfield did not produce trophies. And while Winfield played like a star, other players signed in the 1980s by Steinbrenner did not produce. This includes Ed Whitson, Dave Collins and Andy Hawkins. By the end of the 1980s the Yankees were one of the weakest teams in the American League!
"Dumb" money can make one look smart. It also can lead one to make dumb decisions.
And while signing Collins was just wasted money, getting rid of Collins resulted in the Yankees trading away future Hall of Famer Fred McGriff!
By the end of the 70's the New York Giants were so bad that NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle had to hold an intervention with Giants owner Wellington Mara. The Giants being a laughingstock was bad for football, Rozelle told him. Mara hired George Young as GM, who drafted Phill Simms and Lawrence Taylor and the Giants went on to be one of the dominant teams of the 80s.
For those who aren't from the area, at the time Wellington coöwned the Giants with his nephew Tim, with the issue being they weren't on speaking terms. They were being run as a mom-and-pop shop but the uncle-and-nephew couldn't get along! Tim finally sold out to Bob Tisch in 1991, with Wellington's oldest son and Bob's oldest son still controlling the Giants 50/50 to this day. As an aside this ownership arrangement is now illegal in the NFL; they like having one person in charge. The Giants and the Packers have been grandfathered in.
The NFL is quite a racket. For instance, Dan Snyder was part of a group that bought the Redskins from the Cooke family for something like $800 million. Snyder incompetently ran the franchise so badly that he drove away the fan base. Home games are like away games, especially when teams like the Steelers and the Cowboys come to lovely Landover, MD. But Snyder failed upwards. He sold the ex-Skins for $6 billion and is laughing all the way to the bank.
The average fan doesn’t seem to mind that the Goliaths of their league dominate most years. This especially true in European soccer where mid-level teams sell their stars to top teams to pay down debt. But look at the number of Lakers or Yankees jerseys in middle America and I guess Joe Blow is fine with it. Being a contrarian I feel like I’m always rooting for the teams that don’t have a chance in hell.
There are two major differences between MLB and the NFL. The first is TV income. NFL teams share equally income from TV contracts, while MLB teams generate most of their TV revenue from local contracts. This creates huge discrepancies in team income.
The second major difference is salary caps. MLB has a salary cap but allows teams to exceed the cap by paying a luxury tax to the league. The NFL salary cap is a “hard” cap with no exceptions. Teams can play around with signing bonuses, renegotiating contracts, etc. but most such strategies only delay the day of reckoning.
One key strategy in the NFL is to sign a QB who values winning over maximizing income. Brady and Mahomes both fit into this category. Both were willing to ink contracts at less than the going rate for top performers, allowing teams to sign better supporting casts, although it seems that the Chiefs should have spent more on their left tackles this year. I’m not aware of any baseball players willing to take less than market value to benefit the team.
Mahomes even pulls a teammate (Kelsey) and his head coach into his endorsement deals with State Farm and Subway.
Fine analysis. The NFL comes close to socialism. Little Green Bay makes as much money as the New York Jets. Local cable deals are the big moneymakers in baseball. The Yankees make way more the Royals, Pirates or Rays.
Back when the Atlanta Braves were hot, I heard that Chipper Jones was offered large money on several occasions but opted to spend his career with the franchise that brought him up. Is that what they call a "franchise player?" I dunno. But I do know MLB would be better all around if the players stuck with the partners who brung'em to the dance.
But back before free agency, owners would do things like cut Stan Musial's pay when he'd go only .320-30-120 instead of .330-35-135.
After his one bad season, Ted Williams asked for a pay cut. Who would do that today?
Could free agency have happened without collective bargaining? I wasn't following baseball at all when those negotiations took place. Unionization is what threw U.S. government bureaucracy into tailspin of corruption. Free agency sounds like bait slick lawyers used to gull the young players into joining a union.
Ohtani gave the Dodgers a big discount in Net Present Value terms so they could give him a World Series winning supporting cast, judging by how much Soto went for in NPV. Presumably, Ohtani makes such an incredible amount of money from endorsements in Japan that his team figured he'd do better being the best player on the best team in America than being the highest paid player.
It is funny about quarterbacks. Dominant quarterbacks create winners. And think about the Chicago Bears. Their best all-time quarterback is Sid Luckman who played mostly in the 40s. That's over eighty years ago. The best Bears quarterback since has probably been Jim McMahon, quarterback of that dominant team in the mid-80s.
"On the other hand, should small city teams be as successful as big city teams?"
Well, in the US, do more people live in small markets or large markets? Would tend to think its the small(er) markets/counties that contain the most people (if also one counts suburbs, exhurbs, rural areas)--think the electoral US map that's often shown on election night and beyond--the red state/blue state divide, with the red areas pretty much containing most of the US counties, with the blue areas being the largest metro areas.
Burt according to the Electoral College, it would seem that the most people reside in the red areas, not the blue ones.
As been pointed out numerous times over the decades, baseball in particular got it start in small towns, not in the big cities.
But then one could also make the case that small market teams in MLB have about near equal parity as is possible, with the expanded playoff system, which means that over the last decades teams small markets like Tampa Bay, PIT, STL, KC, have the opportunity to qualify for the postseason, if not actually progress to the WS and play for a championship, which is the same thing for the NFL.
World Soccer it seems would also benefit from expanded levels of playoffs (if they do have such a system intact in their postseason), however, as Steve as stated, the smaller market and thus inferior teams are automatically contracted out of the league so as not to taint the overall quality of the league--this idea would actually be interesting to implement in MLB. Say, the bottom 5 teams in MLB were automatically contracted out for a period of 5 seasons, until they show the ability to improve their quality of play on the field.
But the expanded posteason in MLB has definitely given an opportunity to small market teams to have a chance to compete for a championship. Something that they didn't have in MLB during the 1901-68 era, where there were no multiple levels of the postseason. Then at that time, the teams that finished in first place at the end of the season immediately proceded to the WS, so in that sense, the small market teams have it far easier and directly benefit with the expanded playoff ievels.
I liked that system better. Baseball had real pennant races. But the current playoff system makes more money and baseball will never go back to the old way. Today, teams like the 2019 Nats can surge in the late Summer, get into the playoffs and stay hot, and win the World Series with a 92 win team. The Nats were not the best team in baseball in 2019 but they got hot at the right time.
These are good points, but to be fair, there are also examples of teams getting hot at just the right time during MLB's old system (1901-68)--some of which prompted one or best of three playoff series. For some reason, the 46, 51, 59, and 62 all had BRK/LA involved. The famous 51 NL race, where BRK was leading NYG by 13.5 games in mid. August and the Giants rallied from there on out to win the Pennant.
Also, for most of this Era, MLB had only 16 teams total in all of MLB, later expanded to 20 from 1961-68. I would prefer to see about 4-10 MLB teams contracted out, bringing the total number of MLB teams to more manageable number between 20-26. If there were say, six teams contracted out (akin to UK's Premier League, where the weakest teams are contracted out for a time period) and MLB had "only" 24 teams, with 12 in each league, one could make a case to return to a two division format of six teams, and then a single round of best of 5 games for the league Pennant. And...no Wild Card team, period. None.
Now THAT would go a long way in determining the best team in each league.
Perhaps the expanded playoff rounds are yet another sop thrown to the smaller market teams. After all, smaller markets have:
a. The Luxury Tax imposed on large market teams.
b. Revenue Sharing
c. Top draft picks each year awarded to the teams with the worst records in MLB 's previous season (which usually, but not always, falls on the small market teams).
So I'm not really seeing uh, WHY more and more concessions need to be given to the smaller market teams, especially when their owners are for the most part billionaires, just like the owners of the large market teams. IF with aforementioned sops, combined with the expanded postseason rounds and they still are unable to field competitive teams, then perhaps to even the scales out, MLB should adopt the Premier League's contraction of the weakest teams out of MLB for a specific period of time, and, say, contract the 4-6 weakest teams out, thus bringing back MLB's total number of teams to around 24 in any given season.
What league are you imagining the NY Yankees, e.g., will be playing in if they are "contracted out"(sic) of MLB?
Also, in footy as I understand it, you don't get downgraded for four or five years, you get back in by a high finish in a lower league.
Well…historically in MLB, there are the Yankees,… and there are everyone else.
Rather than saying that fact, wanted to keep it civil, and respectful.
Yes, you get back by doing better in an inferior league, but…that’s assuming that a number of MLB sucky teams would be able to have a high finish in say, Triple A
Come on, folks, kidding not kidding. Just go with it.
But it would be good to contract the worst 4-6 teams out and remove the diluted quality. But then again, the HOF is getting diluted, so contraction of the worst teams probably won’t happen.
And that’s a shame
In Europe it’s quite common for people to support their local team, with the knowledge it can’t possibly win, and *also* to support one of the in-contention giants. And the local sides are often playing for minor prizes of their own: avoiding relegation, seeking promotion, etc.
That fan culture doesn’t really exist in the US because the major sports don’t have inferior divisions comprised of independent teams, but you can sorta see an analogue with a fan who supports both a college and a pro team in the same sport.
Europe also does not have the same level of public-private partnership on stadium deals. Such deals in the U.S. eliminate even discussing promotion and relegation.
In college sports, if the SEC and BIG Ten break away from the rest of college sports, some level of relegation and promotion could occur to keep the excludes conferences in the sphere of the SEC.
With Soto’s contract we are seeing multiple players approaching eye-watering billion dollar contract territory. They can obviously be paid that much by today’s deep-pocketed owners, but can they actually EARN a billion dollars over the life of their playing careers? (Truly earning it by increasing the value of the team through their play and drawing power by more than the cost of their contract)
Baseball has a limited global market when compared to soccer/football. Perhaps the zillionaire class simply doesn’t care…or they are counting on another zillionaire coming along who cares even less about making a profit?
I wonder how much in taxes Soto will pay in New York. If he really wanted every dollar, I suppose he could play for one of the Florida or Texas teams. No state income tax in either.
FWIW, I did notice during a visit to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, about a decade ago, that there are still several dozen Major League baseball teams that have never won the World Series.
"FWIW, I did notice during a visit to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, about a decade ago, that there are still several dozen Major League baseball teams that have never won the World Series."
Several dozen? There are a total of five teams that haven't won the WS: The Colorado Rockies, Milwaukee Brewers, San Diego Padres, Seattle Mariners and Tampa Rays.
Thanks, here are the dozen least successful MLB teams:
Two World Series Wins:
Minnesota Twins (1987, 1991)
Toronto Blue Jays (1992, 1993)
Kansas City Royals (1985, 2015).
One World Series Win:
Arizona Diamondbacks (2001)
Florida/Miami Marlins (1997, 2003)
Washington Nationals (2019)
No World Series Wins:
Colorado Rockies (established in 1993)
Milwaukee Brewers (established in 1969)
San Diego Padres (established in 1969)
Seattle Mariners (established in 1977)
Tampa Bay Rays (established in 1998)
Umm, there are barely several dozen MLB teams overall, never mind that many who have never won the World Series. As it stands 25 teams have won and 5 haven't. In addition, one doesn't need to go to Cooperstown to figure this out.
I wonder if there are studies that analyze whether paying big money for free agents work out in baseball. The Harper and Turner signings have propelled the Phillies into contenders. On the other hand, the Orioles had Corbin Burnes for one season and the Orioles declined by about ten wins this season. In the long past, George Foster signed with the Mets and the Mets remained a poor team although Foster hit fairly well but not up to his Reds standards. For every free agent signing that worked out, there's probably at least one that didn't work out.
Bill James pointed out around 1980 that baseball players tend to peak around age 27, so that the early free agent contracts rewarding famous 30-something stars were usually a bad idea.
I am old enough to remember when Joe Rudi of the Oakland A's was called the most underrated player in baseball. Once Charlie Finley decided not to pay his players, Rudi moved on to the Padres. He was a mediocrity for the rest of his career.
What we want in football are good games between two evenly matched teams.
O/T
iSteve's favorite politician Steve Garvey has failed in his most recent attempt to gain entry into the baseball hall of fame. He received fewer than 5 votes from a committee of 16, with 12 needed for election. Lest anyone think the committee was unnecessarily gatekeeping, they did elect Dick Allen and Dave Parker.
Steve Garvey was a very good player but not Hall of Fame. He hit for medium power and didn't walk a whole lot. Allen and Parker are marginal Hall of Famers. Off the top of my head, players who deserve the Hall of Fame are Tommy John, Lou Whittaker, Dwight Evans, Jeff Kent and Jim Edmonds.
I can see the argument for Dick Allen, who was an incredible talent and an interesting personality, if a drunk, but Dave Parker seems like exactly who'd you want to leave out: a huge talent who didn't live up to his potential due to cocaine and getting fat.
Looking over Parker's stats for the first time in a long while, I tend to agree. Parker wasted much of his prime-years talent. Seasons 1981-1983 clearly mediocre. He put on weight and had to move to first base with the Reds and A's. WAR of 40, somewhat above Harold Baines but far behind Lou Whittaker, Jim Edmonds, Bobby Grich and even Toby Harrah. Nobody's in favor of Harrah in the Hall although he was a very consistent and productive player. Sort of like Howie Kendricks.
In ancient Rome, chariot racing was a huge draw. Before gladiators, chariot racing was the big Roman sporting event, and even after gladiators became big chariot racing retained that traditional Roman appeal, e.g. in the fictional Ben Hur the title character becomes a celebrity from being a great charioteer and not from being a general or being a gladiator. Chariot racing might be considered the MLB to gladiator contests being NFL: an older nostalgic draw for Romans that still retained fans even as the newer sport/league took over marketshare.
Anyway, Rome used to have 4 major chariot teams: the Blues, the Reds, the Whites, and the Greens. However, by late antiquity, only the Blues and Greens remained viable for championships, with the Reds and Whites either not competing most of the time or largely relegated to 3rd and 4th place.
Perhaps a precurser to the MLB's current big-market dominance?
Then again, as much as "big market" MLB teams win, usually every 3-5 years some small market team, through careful drafting and signing low-budget players, makes a run, e.g. Tampa Bay. So while big market teams will always be in the mix (especially with the playoff system), small market teams are not permanently relegated to never winning.
It's not such a bad system for MLB: they are assured that big market teams are always in it for the championship, and therefore the league will have the most eyeballs on the games, but the small-market underdogs can come in and play spoiler/pull and upset and make for a dramatic story every few years to make it exciting. Historically, baseball functions best when there is an overdog dominant "bad guy" team from a big market that smaller teams can snipe at and occasionally upset, e.g. Babe Ruth's 1920s Yankees, Joe Dimaggio/Mickey Mantle's Yankees, the late 70s/early 80s Dodgers, the Gashouse Gang St. Louis Cardinals of the 1930s, the Red Sox of the 2000s, etc.
In fact, this "bad guy" dominant team system is the same as it was for pro wrestling in the old territory days. A bad guy champion would come into town and challenge the local champ, and then walk away with the belt after the local good guy put on a good show. Ric Flair made huge money being the over-the-top dominant bad guy with the championship for the NWA, roaming from territory to territory across the U.S.
P.S. The two-team dominance in Rome eventually became a cause of the rebellion against the Eastern emperor called the Nika riots. The supporters of the two remaining big teams had devolved into football hooligan-esque factions, and often rioted. Enemies of the emperor united the two hooligan groups in a riot against the emperor during a chariot race, and 30,000 people were killed. The emperor survived, however.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Nika_riots
tldr
No one cares what you think, inbred.
"with the player having an option after 5 seasons to re-up and to guarantee him $805 million."
It is all but certain this option will be exercised as it is highly unlikely that Soto will get this kind of AAV for ages 32-41 seasons so it basically just serves as an escalator in the contract.
I wonder at what age Soto becomes a full-time Designated Hitter. 33.
As someone who watches most Yankee games, I can tell you that Soto should be a full-time DH now; he is a butcher in right field.
I know. I used to be a Nats fan until I moved to West Virginia. Outfielding is not part of Soto's skill set.
Aaron Judge had an all time great year at age 32, but he had to play centerfield because Soto had to play right because Stanton really had to be DH. So all winter everybody is going to be dumping on Judge for dropping a ball in the last game of the World Series.
You really want to give your 58 homer man an easy position to play so he doesn't get down about his defense.
The Yankees might want to trade for Jacob Young of the Nats. Young is a center-fielding wizard with little power and some speed, a perfect ninth batter.
Any chance the Yankees might trade for Mike Trout? Or perhaps the Phillies might trade for him.
With the caveat that Judge should have caught that ball, it is worth noting that very few of the greatest offensive players in MLB history have been centerfielders. I can think of Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Tris Speaker, and Mickey Mantle, but that's about it. Meanwhile corner outfielders abound on the list starting with Ruth, Bonds, and Williams.
The best five-tool player in MLB history might be Rickey Henderson. When he was first traded to the Yankees he was forced to play CF as Ken Griffey was entrenched in LF. They eventually figured out that Henderson was much more productive in LF so they traded Griffey for Claudell Washington and put him in CF.
As an aside, due to a lack of Wild Card teams those late-80s Yankees have been forgotten about, but those teams were stacked.
I like a salary cap and a salary floor. I’m sure the player’s union would turn that down though. If Soto signed w Dodgers that would be quite a mess